EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
1135

Taxation is NOT theft

(PRO)
WINNER!
0 points
(CON)
0 points
C David GuittardC David Guittard (PRO)
I propose that taxation is NOT theft because, in America anyway, we have a representative form of government.  Sometimes our elected officials do not do as they would wish but we have the power to confront them.

For the sake of this debate, it must be remembered that all taxes aren't income taxes.  Some may argue that we have not had an income tax until 1913.  This is wrong.  We had an income tax during the Civil War.  Further, our founding fathers were not against income tax (I am on economic grounds).  Hamilton convinced Washington to go after whiskey distillers in Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion in order to recoup war costs.  

Our culture has people who will not voluntarily contribute to worthwhile programs if they don't have to.  That's a shame because there is no way to exclude non-payers from enjoying what the taxpayer is paying for.   Roads, for example.  There is a semi-valid argument that businesses can pay for roads but aren't we really then saying that business can tax us instead of government?  I don't have a say in what rules business comes up with for using "their" roads.  I do, however, have a say in what regulations government imposes. Also, what about interstate highways?  Which business is going to pay for that?  National ones like Walmart and McDonalds?  Why?  Why should they pay for me to drive from New York to California?  Their business won't drop off because the government pays for these amenities. What about rural roads which hardly anyone uses but they connect point A to point B?  Why should businesses pay for that when the government does?  If they did pay for that it would increase their operating expenses and we would pay higher prices for their products than what we pay in tax. That would be robbery. 


There are other taxes. Sales tax, for example.  Nobody is forcing the consumer to purchase items.  Most states don't even have tax on items like groceries or medicine.  I don't need cable or internet.  It's a convenience that I am glad to have but there are places with free wifi where I can obtain these services without being taxed.  I choose to purchase it knowing that there is a tax.  I can also indirectly (through voting process) choose how much tax I pay.  When someone is stolen from they do not get to tell the robber, "Yeah, that's a bit steep.  How about I give you half of what you are asking?"  Further, we don't get to decide who robs us.  I do get a say in who will be making tax regulations.
 
It has been argued that  "because we face incarceration and other penalties for not fulfilling our duties as citizens, that taxation is indeed  theft."  Well, sure, there are penalties for not filing taxes.  The power for this comes from the same place that our rights to vote, our right to read what we want to, associate with who we want to, worship (or not worship) as we choose, and our legal rights against improper searches comes from.  We cannot pick and choose as we see fit.  For us to say otherwise is to say, "Yes, I agree in the separation of church and state but I think it is us to me to tell you what you can and cannot read."  What we can do, however, is get involved in the legal process and convince our fellow citizens to side with us to 1) limit or 2) do away with taxation.

To sum up, I don't believe income tax is valid but there are valid reasons to have other taxes. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-13 03:54:40
| Speak Round
Cross-Examination
Jrkeil8: fsdgs
Jrkeil8: Let’s start off with the representative form of government I agree America has. Who does this government represent? In today’s world, it seems to represent less what the people want and more what lobbyists and special interests want. Your voice in today’s government is drowned out by fundraising parties and expensive dinners. It is here I point out the first flaw in your argument Americas government no longer represents the will of the people and their desire to be free. You are correct in saying the first income tax was not in 1913 that’s just the one we have now. Also, using an idea
Jrkeil8: sorry first time using this site.
Jrkeil8: i have a typed out response but I cant post it all?

Return To Top
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8 (CON)
Let’s start off with the representative form of government I agree America has. Who does this government represent? In today’s world, it seems to represent less what the people want and more what lobbyists and special interests want. Your voice in today’s government is drowned out by fundraising parties and expensive dinners. It is here I point out the first flaw in your argument Americas government no longer represents the will of the people and their desire to be free.
You are correct in saying the first income tax was not in 1913 that’s just the one we have now. Also, using an idea brought forth by the Central bank loving Hamilton is not an argument in support of taxation but rather more reason to oppose it. It is also noteworthy that this tax caused a rebellion and if not for the authoritarian actions of Washington would have been rejected by the people. This tax like many was regressive and targeted one group of people. This is not a free market approach to governance it is choosing to make it harder for a specific industry to sell their product.
Your assumption that certain people wouldn’t contribute to roads voluntarily is just that an assumption. I would assume the opposite that if everyone could keep all their money it would be easy to raise the money for the projects they find important. Most people argue for taxes based on roads so it follows logically that most people would donate to fund them. There is no data to suggest your assumption as fact and if that data were collected I’d wager a guess it’s a very low percentage of people who would not contribute. That could easily be outweighed by successful contributors who donate more than the average individual. I support private roads but I also support the idea of voluntary funding and think roads, police, fire and even utilities could be funded through voluntary interaction. As far as rural roads go most people who live in rural communities have heavy equipment and the work ethic to handle their roads. I know because I lived on these roads their upkeep is very minimal and would not be difficult to manage for the community. Many rural homeowners have ¼ mile plus driveways that they maintain. Its not a stretch to think they could work together and handle their roads through voluntary work and donation.
Sales tax is the most voluntary of taxes I will agree but they can also be the most regressive. It may be true most states do not charge a sales tax on food but in my state Colorado most cities have at least a 2% sales tax on food, my city has theirs set at 3% and are trying to raise it. But this is not the main point. The main point is whether a 3rd party has the authority to tell you that just because you want to buy a product or service in their jurisdiction you must pay over what the vendor is charging. This is a completely immoral concept there is no reason for a 3rd party to be involved with a transaction unless there was a breach of contract. Even if it is voted on by the public a majority is oppressing a minority against their will, increasing the minorities cost of living. This initiation of force is unethical and immoral. Another point of technicality taxation would be better described as extortion or blackmail as you do have a choice it just happens to be between two very bad options.
You have a right to vote because you are human, you have a right to read whatever you want because you are human, you have the right to life, liberty and property because you are human not because a government tells you that its ok. Words on paper are just that words and they can change with the winds but what is right and moral will never change. Force is immoral whether executed by a minority or majority, simply put force is force.
Taxation is theft/extortion for the simple reason that you cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. You cannot take from someone their property without permission and so government which was created by individuals cannot take property without permission. It is that simple.
Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-15 04:46:08
| Speak Round
C David GuittardC David Guittard (PRO)

I'd like to thank my opponent for bringing up good points:


Who is really heard in politics?-

The government has become more transparent and accessible to all Americans. Today's lobbyist groups are mostly made up of constituents. The A powerful lobbying group is MADD.  Corporate interests don't play into this but politicians are hurting their careers if they ignore these groups. 


"This is not a free market approach to governance it is choosing to make it harder for a specific industry to sell their product."

I agree. Adam Smith would too, but taxes allow funding more efficiently than tariffs and quotas.  These always have negative effects on trade. 

The argument isn't  income tax is theft but saying "all tax is theft because income tax is " would be like saying, “Suge Knight is a criminal. Suge Knight is black. It follows that all black people are criminals.” I propose that if only one type of tax isn't theft then all tax can't be theft. If only one black person isn't a criminal then all black people can't be lumped into the same category as Suge Knight.


Your assumption that certain people wouldn’t contribute to roads voluntarily is just that an assumption.
It's an assumption to say it is an assumption. It hasn't been disproven so your statement is a self-reference.  You are already defining it as an assumption without disproving it. 


Problem with voluntarism and masses determining value-

You stated, "if everyone could keep all their money it would be easy to raise the money for the projects they find important"

Voluntarism is cool but the problem is still us giving money to charities or others that handle the funds. There are way too many 501c3 existing that don't do anything but collect money. Sure, they're overseen but by who? Where do your funds really go? http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/.


I'd rather have more direct control of my resources. Also,  popularity of a project doesn't determine value. To say that people decide where the funds go to because they voluntarily donate it to it ignores this.  I'm sure that most Germans in the 40s would support voluntarily paying for concentration camps.  There was a time when most American voters would gladly chip in to keep marijuana illegal. If we all decide to pay someone to dig a hole and another to fill it up, where is the value?


"That could easily be outweighed by successful contributors who donate more than the average individual."

 If a few people cover the bulk of the costs then they will naturally want to dictate where their money is going. The people who can't afford that influence have less representation than the current situation. We haven't gotten rid of government at all, merely changed the form it takes.  

Breach of contract -
And who would mediate a breach of contract? Eventually, it would be the people who pay the most to a voluntarily funded court as to not allow them this right would be theft of the money they contributed. They are going to want more representation than the one who doesn't pay or pays very little.


Guarantee of rights in America vs other countries that don't acknowledge these rights -

To say that we have these rights because we are human is primarily a 20th century, American, concept. To this day there are countries from England to North Korea where people lack rights that we are guaranteed by the Constitution. 


We are guaranteed these rights by our constitution but this was an area of controversy when Comstock laws meant it was illegal to ship Playboy to local stores. People did NOT have the right to look at pornographic material. What a great time to be alive when I can decide, “I don't like pornography. I choose not to purchase it; the government isn't making that decision."


Where authority to tax comes from-

I do have the authority granted by the Constitution.


Return To Top | Posted:
2017-03-18 02:25:02
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
you still here when I click on your profile it says you got banned.
Posted 2017-03-30 01:33:51
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Yeah tonight i will get on and post a new one.
Posted 2017-03-27 17:01:20
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Absolutely. Responded to this the other day, just didn't post for some reason. Do you want to start it as this will give you opportunity to reply to this debate to start the new one?
Posted 2017-03-25 17:58:27
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Hey man sorry craxy busy this week with convention this weekend and the election in my concil race Aprill 11th. Can we start again moday?
Posted 2017-03-24 15:21:51
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Yeah, I was going to have the same problem but remembered last minute.

It would be great to have an email reminder.

Do you want to start the debate since you'd go first to reply to this debate?
Posted 2017-03-20 23:11:52
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
damn I just missed it, anyway we can keep going? sorry just couldn't get home to post it in time.
Posted 2017-03-20 03:53:51
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Posted.
Posted 2017-03-18 02:25:21
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Cool. Will post tonight.
Posted 2017-03-17 21:54:44
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
That was my fear too
Posted 2017-03-17 17:05:49
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Oh, cool. Good to know! Enjoying our debate. Didn't want to concede.
Posted 2017-03-17 03:40:57
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Just wait until cross examination expires and you will be able to post your response
Posted 2017-03-16 19:56:31
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
So*
Posted 2017-03-16 19:55:59
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Zo cross exam seems to be where you can ask specific single item questions. Response will come after cross examination. I ran into the same issue
Posted 2017-03-16 19:55:24
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Have my response typed out but can't enter it. Sent message on forum:
I'm trying to reply to my debate and pressed "start drafting next post" this goes to http://www.edeb8.com/debate/Taxation+is+NOT+theft/post from http://www.edeb8.com/debate/Taxation+is+NOT+theft/ but there is no box for me to type response into. If I got to "engage in cross-exam" It only gives me a text box for about a line of response.

Is this something I am doing wrong?
Posted 2017-03-16 17:49:20
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Actually, the amount of representation we actually have varies from city up to federal with us losing more and more as we go to federal. School PTA has a lot direct representation, so does state.
Posted 2017-03-15 22:13:29
C David GuittardC David Guittard
yeah, this is my first time using this site too so a bit of it is stuff I am learning as I go. Will post response tomorrow.
Posted 2017-03-15 22:06:59
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Now i see
Posted 2017-03-15 04:44:48
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Im trying the explanations on how to do this are not very good. I tried to post in the cross examination but it onky let me do like 300 words or something.
Posted 2017-03-15 00:01:00
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Are you the same Jrkeil8 that took "con"? Please debate me in the right area.


Posted 2017-03-14 22:52:46
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Let’s start off with the representative form of government I agree America has. Who does this government represent? In today’s world, it seems to represent less what the people want and more what lobbyists and special interests want. Your voice in today’s government is drowned out by fundraising parties and expensive dinners. It is here I point out the first flaw in your argument Americas government no longer represents the will of the people and their desire to be free.
You are correct in saying the first income tax was not in 1913 that’s just the one we have now. Also, using an idea brought forth by the Central bank loving Hamilton is not an argument in support of taxation but rather more reason to oppose it. It is also noteworthy that this tax caused a rebellion and if not for the authoritarian actions of Washington would have been rejected by the people. This tax like many was regressive and targeted one group of people. This is not a free market approach to governance it is choosing to make it harder for a specific industry to sell their product.
Your assumption that certain people wouldn’t contribute to roads voluntarily is just that an assumption. I would assume the opposite that if everyone could keep all their money it would be easy to raise the money for the projects they find important. Most people argue for taxes based on roads so it follows logically that most people would donate to fund them. There is no data to suggest your assumption as fact and if that data were collected I’d wager a guess it’s a very low percentage of people who would not contribute. That could easily be outweighed by successful contributors who donate more than the average individual. I support private roads but I also support the idea of voluntary funding and think roads, police, fire and even utilities could be funded through voluntary interaction. As far as rural roads go most people who live in rural communities have heavy equipment and the work ethic to handle their roads. I know because I lived on these roads their upkeep is very minimal and would not be difficult to manage for the community. Many rural homeowners have ¼ mile plus driveways that they maintain. Its not a stretch to think they could work together and handle their roads through voluntary work and donation.
Sales tax is the most voluntary of taxes I will agree but they can also be the most regressive. It may be true most states do not charge a sales tax on food but in my state Colorado most cities have at least a 2% sales tax on food, my city has theirs set at 3% and are trying to raise it. But this is not the main point. The main point is whether a 3rd party has the authority to tell you that just because you want to buy a product or service in their jurisdiction you must pay over what the vendor is charging. This is a completely immoral concept there is no reason for a 3rd party to be involved with a transaction unless there was a breach of contract. Even if it is voted on by the public a majority is oppressing a minority against their will, increasing the minorities cost of living. This initiation of force is unethical and immoral. Another point of technicality taxation would be better described as extortion or blackmail as you do have a choice it just happens to be between two very bad options.
You have a right to vote because you are human, you have a right to read whatever you want because you are human, you have the right to life, liberty and property because you are human not because a government tells you that its ok. Words on paper are just that words and they can change with the winds but what is right and moral will never change. Force is immoral whether executed by a minority or majority, simply put force is force.
Taxation is theft/extortion for the simple reason that you cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. You cannot take from someone their property without permission and so government which was created by individuals cannot take property without permission. It is that simple.
Posted 2017-03-14 22:24:47
Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
Logic here: "Taxation is not theft because we have a very minuscule say in what the government can coerce people to do and build"
Posted 2017-03-14 19:58:32
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Can i just say really? Roads is where we are going to go with this. Alright expect my response by morning.
Posted 2017-03-13 20:04:55
C David GuittardC David Guittard
Guess you can reply here. Debate takes place in other part, though.
Posted 2017-03-13 04:52:21
Colton HarrisColton Harris
Do I reply in the comments section?
Posted 2017-03-13 04:26:31
Jrkeil8Jrkeil8
Taxation IS theft/extortion
Posted 2017-03-11 15:48:09
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • Lincoln-Douglas Debate
  • Permissive Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None